C-global eternal?

What is the point of continually repeating something you have already proven to be wrong Otto? It's getting very boring.

Off course 

Zbigniew, I think you misunderstand my comment. Otto has said that his "c-global" idea proves gravitational waves cannot exist. LIGO has directly measured gravitational waves therefore Otto has proven that "c-global"is wrong. His so-called warnings were based on maths that he knows is flawed, they are as boring as the warnings that the world will end in 2012. You don't see many of those nowadays.

Dear George:

You said: "What is the point of continually repeating something you have already proven to be wrong Otto? It's getting very boring."

Please, be so kind to tell me and us all which statement you have in mind and where it was proven wrong.

I would very much appreciate this help from your part.

Take care,

Otto

Read the reply above yours Otto, we've talked through this many times.

Dear Dr. Rossler,

Please find attached a paper on gravity by Ronald Ray Hatch -- one of the principal architects of the very successful GPS -- that completely refutes both Einstein's GRT and his SRT as well.  This article is not based upon any arm chair thought experiment, but rather on hard, hard GPS data!

@ Dennis P. Allen Jr. / George Dishman

We can live in peace with Einstein if we accept that there is no effect on anything if we try to measure any length of another object with different speed / accelaration by using information coming from light rays.

Absolute length is an ideal!   No one could bend this ideal to get a curved one.

For GPS the result from Eintein (only) is the factor in correctness we have to use. So Dr. Roessler and I came to the same result in many hours of talking — as I understood.

No, the key SRT concept of the "relativity of simultaneity" fails in the solar system ... or else GPS fails to work as well as it evidently does.  It would not be possible to obtain 15-18 inch accuracy with GPS if one person's "now" could be different from another's "now" in the solar system.  This is a fact: simultaneity is absolute in the solar system!

What does the correctness has to do with the theory?

As well as we couldn´t fix the position of the one to another relative moving partners we could´t determine their `now´ without a correction (of Einstein).

But there are two possibilities to interprete that. I gave the second. Some understands it, some tries and some would never. The interpretation is free for everyone.

DPA:  It would not be possible to obtain 15-18 inch accuracy with GPS if one person's "now" could be different from another's "now" in the solar system.  This is a fact: simultaneity is absolute in the solar system!

That is complete nonsense, a GPS receiver is a single object so relativity of simultaneity is even relevant. The reason why four satellites are needed for a fix is because there are four unknowns, longitude, latitude, altitude and local time. The receivers solve for all four using the "pseudo-ranges" obtained from the local clock.

Please note also that your replies have nothing to do with Otto's question which is about gravitational time dilation.

GD:  Yes, there certainly are needed four satellites; however, the attached paper by GPS key architect, Ronald Ray Hatch (who invented the Hatch filter) clearly explains that simultaneity is absolute in the solar system, and it is not a difficult read. When the GPS was new, it was founded on Einstein's SRT and his GRT, and so the accuracy was about 100 yards ... and so, if there were (say) two right turns one right next to the other, then one did not know which to take, if the GPS signaled for a right turn.  But then GPS engineers like Ron decided that it must be possible to do better than this, and so they parted ways with the SRT & GRT physicists and not they have much greater accuracy.  So, although SRT & GRT did enable a usable GPS, it was still not optimal; but now the GPS engineers have jettisoned these two theories of Albert Einstein, and things are much better as far as accuracy is concerned.  And, if you wish to pursue this, Ron's email address is: Ron.R.Hatch@outlook.com.  (You might ask him for a copy of his recent "Tolerable Asymmetry" paper.)

Furthermore, Otto discusses time dilation in terms of both (Einstein's) SRT & GRT, and both are seriously flawed!!!  And, in fact, they're both WRONG!!!

DPA: GPS key architect, Ronald Ray Hatch (who invented the Hatch filter) clearly explains that simultaneity is absolute in the solar system, and it is not a difficult read.

It doesn't even mention GPS, it is just another description based on the assumption of an aether, nothing new.

DPA: When the GPS was new, it was founded on Einstein's SRT and his GRT, and so the accuracy was about 100 yards. But then GPS engineers like Ron decided that it must be possible to do better than this, and so they parted ways with the SRT & GRT physicists and not they have much greater accuracy. So, although SRT & GRT did enable a usable GPS, it was still not optimal

When the system was first launched, it was funded by the US military. It had a deliberate pseudo-random error introduced called "Selective Availability" which was to prevent it being used for precision targetting by opposing forces.

Then civil airlines started using it and other techniques were developed to maintain security so SA was switched off in 2000, that is why the accuracy improved. It is currently better than 3.5m directly and is still based entirely on GR.

What you don't know is that I'm a radio engineer and I was evaluating the system when there were only 6 satellites in orbit in the late 1980's, so don't waste your time telling me these fairy stories.

GD:  Well, the 80's were a long time ago, but being 74 years old, I can personally attest to the 100 yard original accuracy.  But things change in time, and now the accuracy is much better; and you do not dispute this, of course. 

But, GD, how can simultaneity be relative to the observer (one of the inflexible & key ideas of the SRT people), when nowadays the great accuracy GPS clearly means that in the region of space used by the GPS, the "now" of all parties is almost exactly the same, that is, that simultaneity is absolute there? (Or don't you understand what "relativity of simultaneity" actually means?  It just means that, for example, one observer may perceive event 1 as occurring before event 2, while another observer may view event 2 as happening before event 1 ... impossible, of course, in the region of space served by GPS due to its great accuracy.)

Furthermore, Ron Hatch carefully and patiently explains in his (2007)  "A New Theory of Gravity ..." (attached last time) just exactly why Einstein's central GRT "equivalence principle" fails at the beginning of his paper by clearly refuting both Einstein's & Feynman's physical reasoning regarding Einstein's GRT.  (But you have not read & understood this, I take it?)   So, then, how can it really be true that the GPS is based entirely on Einstein's GPS ... that Ron clearly points out is WRONG?  (But, unfortunately, you don't seem to be any too cognizant of GRT's or SRT"s subtleties ... as that is physics, not electrical engineering?)

God Bless, Denny

DPA: But, GD, how can simultaneity be relative to the observer (one of the inflexible & key ideas of the SRT people), when nowadays the great accuracy GPS clearly means that in the region of space used by the GPS, the "now" of all parties is almost exactly the same,...

Not "now" but civil time.

DPA: that is, that simultaneity is absolute there? Or don't you understand what "relativity of simultaneity" actually means?

I t6hink you don't, that is the problem.

DPA It just means that, for example, one observer may perceive event 1 as occurring before event 2, while another observer may view event 2 as happening before event 1 ... impossible, of course, in the region of space served by GPS due to its great accuracy.)

Suppose we have two GPS receivers some distance apart. A person standing between them at a constant distance from each will say they are in sync because they show the same reading at the same time measured on a clock he holds. A person walking between them measures them to be out of sync because their displays show the same readings at different times according to a clock that he is carrying. GPS is a good way of synchronising clocks in the Earth-centred inertial frame, but they are then not synchronised in any other inertial frame.

DPA: Furthermore, Ron Hatch carefully and patiently explains in his (2007)  "A New Theory of Gravity ..." (attached last time) just exactly why Einstein's central GRT "equivalence principle" fails

However, Pound and Rebka tested it and proved that it is correct, they won the Nobel Prize for that measurement. It is Hatch who is wrong.

DPA: So, then, how can it really be true that the GPS is based entirely on Einstein's GPS ... that Ron clearly points out is WRONG?

Because Ron is wrong. The satellites have an on-board correction to their atomic clocks because GR predicts they should run 38 microseconds per day faster than Earth surface civil time. Continuous monitoring of the satellites shows that with that circuit operating, they match civil time to within a few nanoseconds per day. The slight variations are partly due to variable gravity from variations in the planet's near-surface density, mountains, oceans etc. and has been used to map the gravitational contours by the GRACE project.

DPA: But, unfortunately, you don't seem to be any too cognizant of GRT's or SRT"s subtleties ... as that is physics, not electrical engineering?)

The evidence suggests I am far more aware of the physics than your badly flawed arguments say about your own level of knowledge.

GD:  Thanks for your reply. 

In connection with your criticism of Ron Hatch's gravitational theory that asserts that Einstein's GRT is wrong, you prominently mention the famous Pound- Rebka experiment as proof that Ron is wrong.  However, Ron also accepts the Pound-Rebka experiment (see page16 at the beginning of the page of the attached), but the subtle point that you miss is that -- as Ron points out -- there are two interpretations of this experiment: one that the light signal changes frequency during its flight and the other that the intrinsic rates of the emitter and receiver change in frequency, that is, whether the shift is due to the clocks or due to the signal.  And then Ron goes on to adduce hard evidence. 

Now the equivalence principle of GRT indicates that the signal changed frequency in flight, But Ron points out that particles in free fall due not pick up (magically) energy from a gravitational field, and then expands upon this adducing further evidence such as that the Hafele and Keating experiment indicates.  And thus it seems to me that you have a habit of quoting "conventional wisdom" to me to argue against Ron's analysis which you apparently have not read & understood.  A person who refuses to grapple with the argument of someone, but who instead relies on "conventional wisdom" is not then actually going into the subtleties of the argument.  To refute a reasoned argument, it is necessary to first understand it and then to locate an error in it.. 

I will give one other counter argument to GRT.  Its (Einstein) scale factor is:

                              s = square-root(1 - 2 G M / (r c^2)),

but this cannot be correct because (see Ron's gravity paper on page 8)  "this scale factor has a problem.  Hans Montanus describes the problem very simply.  He says to consider the gravitational scale factor from a large spherical mass.  Now split the mass into a number, n - 1, of concentric shells of mass equal to one n-th of the total, together with a final small central spherical mass of one n-th the total mass.  The result should be that the the product of the n scale factors is equal to the scale factor of the total.  But this result can only be true if the scale factor has an exponential form.  The revised scale factor, which gives the same first order effect, is

                       s = exp(G M / (r c^2))."

But here it might be objected that both scale factors agree to the first two terms in their appropriate power series expansions, and since the effect is small anyway, this is only a small bump in the GRT road that does not really matter in today's technologies. 

However, what about tomorrow's technologies?  Who knows about them?

And, you know, I had though that I would now turn my attention to Einstein's SRT and its errors, but first I think I'm going to ask you to argue against the above by going into the subtleties of Ron's careful reasoning concerning GRT to see if you can do any more than just merely quote "conventional wisdom" to me in as much as you allege above that it is yourself who understands these subtleties, not myself.

But it really would be much better if you were to email Ron ( I gave you his email address before) and ask him for a copy of his new paper: "Tolerable Asymmetries" that clearly reveals the errors in SRT much better than any explanation that I might be able to offer you, and you could then avoid any further embarrassments by avoiding a public debate like this.

God Bless, Denny

The above 16 "answers" seem to have nothing to do with my question. So why are they here?

Otto, you can see at the top of this page I said "Please note also that your replies have nothing to do with Otto's question ...". The first 6 answers are relevant.

I wasn't going to reply again but I suppose I should explain why I think the conversation with Denny has reached a dead end.

DPA: the subtle point that you miss is that -- as Ron points out -- there are two interpretations of this experiment: one that the light signal changes frequency during its flight and the other that the intrinsic rates of the emitter and receiver change in frequency, that is, whether the shift is due to the clocks or due to the signal.

You see Denny, this is a good example of why I don't engage in such discussions. You have offered two choices but neither of those represents GR. The theory is more complex than that, so what you are asking is that I defend one erroneous description in preference to another erroneous description. Instead, all you have done is demonstrate to me that Hatch doesn't understand GR, and what he is arguing against is his own flawed understanding of what GR says. He may well be correct in saying that he has found errors in what he thinks GR says, but that doesn't impact on the theory itself.

DPA: Now the equivalence principle of GRT indicates that the signal changed frequency in flight,

Frequency measured in what reference frame? You see already he is making a statement that is incomplete and invalid. The is constructing a strawman model.

DPA: But Ron points out that particles in free fall due not pick up (magically) energy from a gravitational field,

Drop a brick on your foot from a height of 2cm above your shoe. Then repeat from 2m. Does the latter hurt more? The brick appears to have gained kinetic energy from the gravitational field.

The point Denny is that if he makes statements that are trivial to refute, do I really want to spend my precious free time pointing out the obvious lack of understanding in the paper? I have better things to do with my time and I'm sure Otto would appreciate it if we both just drew a line under this conversation at that.

George D: Thanks for the reply. Well, don't you even realize that it is not necessary -- when refuting a theory -- to examine that theory in its full generality, but only to show that in a particular case that it leads to an incorrect result?

Now, as to the question of whether or not a photon that travels downward in a gravitational field gains energy; yes, at first thought, it seems that it must since it is accelerated downward using the equivalence principle.

However, (to quote from Ron's 2007 paper on gravity), "The fact that the clock rate is a function of the gravitational potential reveals that the frequency of a photon does not increase as the photon falls; it simply starts out at a higher frequency. There is additional evidence from navigation satellites that shows directly that the frequency of a photon is not affected as it falls in a gravitational potential. The first evidence is from the global positioning system (GPS). [Yes, Ron here certainly does mention the GPS contrary to what you have asserted above, George!] Virtually all high-accuracy GPS receivers take advantage of the concept of 'smoothing the code with the carrier.' The range from the satellite to the receiver is measured by taking the speed of light times the transit time of the signal, which is measured using a pseudorandom (code) modulation scheme. This code measurement is about 100 times noisier than the carrier phase measurement. The carrier phase measurement is measured by integrating the received frequency beat against an internal clock in the receiver. This in integrated count is scaled by the transmitted wavelength. While there is a constant of integration to deal with in the latter measurement, if the frequency changed in transit, there would be a divergence between the code and carrier phase measurements that would be a function of the changing geometry. This divergence would prevent the carrier phase measurement from matching the dynamics of the code, and the smoothing would not work. (A divergence does occur due to ionospheric refraction but this divergence is inversely proportional to the transmitted frequency and is removed by using two frequencies.) No divergence between the (refraction-corrected) code and carrier phase measurements occurs. This independently proves that the [photon] frequency does not change in transit."

George, please get off your high horse, and deal with this hard evidence of the fact that a photon does NOT gain energy as it falls in a gravitational field as the equivalence principle -- in this special case -- says unequivocally that it must!!!

God Bless, Denny

Dear Dennis: Quote: "the equivalence principle of GRT indicates that the signal changed frequency in flight,"

There is an interesting counterargument in Julian Schwinger's nice book "Einstein' Legacy" of 1986, p. 142.

He convincingly shows that the frequency of photons emitted downstairs is constant along the way, reflecting the slower clocks and less massive atoms downstairs. The equivalence principle is still the home planet of gravitation theory.

I met Ron and know he is one of the inventors of the GPS. But I do not know his current views.

Denny, I already answered this point in this thread:

You quote Hatch saying: "No divergence between the (refraction-corrected) code and carrier phase measurements occurs. This independently proves that the [photon] frequency does not change in transit."

The first sentence is correct, there is no alteration created in the modulated waveform. However, the data stream is derived by division from the on-board clock hence is itself subject to time dilation between the source and receiver. That fact means that the carrier must also be changed in frequency by the same proportion, which means that Hatch's observation proves that the photons are altered in frequency to stay in step with the data waveform. As I said before, I think he has assumed the data rate is not affected which is incorrect.

George Dishman: Many thanks for your reply above.

I have contacted Ron Hatch by email concerning your message above alleging the incorrectness of Ron's gravity paper in the case of a photon falling in a gravitational field not augmenting the photon's energy (as the equivalence principle would certainly predict), and he has replied (see attached) in a short email in which he explains your error in the just above.

God Bless,

Denny

Thank you Denny, that nicely confirms what I had previously inferred:

GD: As I said before, I think he has assumed the data rate is not affected which is incorrect.

RH: But a change in the carrier frequency in transit would not affect the modulation in transit in the same way.

I can also now see a possible reason why he made that mistake:

RH: This is illustrated by the ionospheric effect on the frequency versus its effect on the code--it changes them in transit in the opposite direction.

Ionospheric effects are dispersive, they create a delay which is frequency dependent, gravitational time delay is not so it affects all the Fourier components by the same ratio and therefore preserves the modulation rate.

To address his other comments just for completeness:

RH: Dennis, The problem with George's assertion is that he is not distinguishing between a phenomena which (many claim) occurs in the transit of the signal from satellite to ground with the (actual) phenomenon which occurs in the satellite clock versus the receiver clock.

They are one and the same, what Ron has seen is two different but equivalent descriptions of the same phenomenon and has unfortunately imagined they are different expectations which would create different results. That is not the case.

RH: He truthfully cites the later but claims that it proves the former is correct. That does not follow.

It does follow because both are only alternative explanations of the same effect.

RH: Yes, they both leave the satellite in step. But a change in the carrier frequency in transit would not affect the modulation in transit in the same way.

It does because there is no dispersion, Ron should try this with a toy example, perhaps a carrier with 30% AM modulation and a data stream simulated by a 50% duty cycle square wave at 1/20 the carrier frequency (that represents a "..101010.." data stream of alternating data bits). That would repeat 10 carrier cycles at high amplitude then 10 cycles at low amplitude. He'll know all this of course, it's for the benefit of you and others reading this thread who don't have a communications background so everyone can follow the argument.

Take a Fourier Transform of that, increase all frequencies by a common factor (say 10%) then take the inverse transform. He will find that the modulating frequency is also reduced by 10% and that the number of carrier cycles is still 10 high and 10 low. If only the carrier were affected, there should be 11 carrier cycles per bit, that won't happen.

George Dishman: I have run your reply by Ron, and he has replied in the attached (that may surprise you).

God Bless, Denny

George Dishman: I have run your reply by Ron, and he has replied in the attached (that may suprize you).

God Bless, Denny

Dennis, the attachment you've sent is a compressed directory structure with no content I can find. There's a thumbnail (attached) but it is unreadable as you can see.

Dear George Dishman,

Sorry for the bad text that is unreadable as you say.

I have restored the text above and it is now attached.

God Bless, Denny

Thanks Denny, that's fine. I have to say I am pleasantly surprised but perhaps talking engineer to engineer (in terms of Fourier analysis) has been able to break through some barriers. Ron starts by saying:

RH: George may very well be correct that the divergence between code and carrier received do not prove my assertion that it is clock rate differences rather than frequency change in transit.

I think that wraps up the previous conversation nicely, we have reached a mutually acceptable understanding. He then goes on:

RH: However there is another proof from GPS that proves it is the clocks not the frequency in transit.

To a partial extent, I would agree with that but in more detail there are contributions from both which are better viewed through a third alternative, so he is not wrong but it is more complex than he realises. The argument he goes on to present is quite different from our preceding conversation so what I will do is write a suitable response to that and either contact him directly or pass it via you. However, I have other commitments over the next two weeks due to an upcoming exhibition and trying to study the wealth of new information from GW170817 so I may not be able to respond before then.

Please pass on my apologies for the delay,

best regards

George

Dear George Dishman,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I'll copy your answer above and sens it on to Ron. And since I'm not an engineer, but rather a mathematician, it might be better if you were to email Ron directly (I've already given you hie email address). But, if you decide not, then I'll be looking forward to your reply in a couple of weeks.

God Bless, Denny

Dennis, it may be a bit longer, Alexander Lukanenkov has made available the MATLAB code he promised some time ago in this thread:

OK, I look forward to your eventual reply.

God Bless, Denny

It would be great to find a counter-proof to c-global. Can you, George, or can anyone else come up with a try?

Otto,

The equivalence principle -- which is at the core of your question -- cannot be correct in as much as excellent Russian experimental physicist, Prof. Alexander Dmitriev, has recently shown that horizontally spinning rotors do not, in general, fall at the same acceleration at all as when they are not spinning (see attached little paper with his hard data). However, the equivalence principle obviously demands that spinning rotors fall at the same rate as when they are not spinning! So please put your worries to rest!

God Bless, Denny

Otto, as I have pointed out several times, the Shapiro Delay disproves it, that effect would not exist if you were right.

Two most interesting replies, dear Denny and dear George.

If Dimitriev is right, this has huge consequences yet to be worked out. But the experimental evidence is, unfortunately, to thin for that up until now.

The Shapiro time delay is a tiny bit larger if I am right, dear George.

Dear Otto, Thanks for the reply.

Yes, the direct experimental evidence for the Dmitriev result that horizontally spinning rotors fall with a different gravitational acceleration than if they are not spinning is -- in itself -- somewhat "thin" as you say above; however, the consequences of Dmitriev's insight HAVE been worked out in the attached book by Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies and myself, and especially in Chapter 4 and its appendix, you know. And the resulting mechanical theory that improves upon classical mechanical theory by only just changing Newtonian mechanics in the smallest possible way so as to smoothly include "variable inertial mass" (also discovered by the British inventor Eric Laithwaite who is additionally responsible for the trains in Germany & Japan that float on magnetic fields and so do not touch the rails) then allows one to successfully computer simulate the Harvey Fiala (a retired Space Shuttle Supervisor who wrote his [gravitational] thesis at Cal Tech under Prof. Richard Feynman) patented HMT inertial propulsion device that Harvey successfully demonstrated in 2012 at the Tesla Tech conference of that year (see my two part simulation on my ResearchGate.com web page. the first part being of the powering gyroscope and the second part being of the device chassis). And so here, then, is some powerful indirect evidence that you might want to look into as well.

Dear Denny:

I very much like the spirit of your letter and your and your friends' school. If I were younger I would do much to penetrate deeper.

At the moment I still have such a rich vintage from my revival of c-global that I -- perhaps misguidedly -- prefer to stick to that latter avenue of adventure a bit longer.

But I have very much sympathy for your avenue.

Take care,

Otto

OER: The Shapiro time delay is a tiny bit larger if I am right, dear George

I think you will find it would be zero if you were right Otto.

Dear Otto, Many thanks for the brief reply.

Well, Einstein's relativity theories have had their day in the sun for over 100 years now, and such physical theories have an approximate century of success and then begin to wane as technology advances. Both theories, but especially GRT are very mathematical, and so quite less physical than, for example, Faraday's work. In fact, GRT is really only physical in nature in that it reduces to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation to first order. And it's verification involves strange conceptions such as black holes, curved space time, and neutron stars, not exactly heavily supported by hard experiment. On the other hand, I have an electrostatic theory of gravity that (1) predicts Newton's gravitational constant G (that Newton admittedly could not derive) and (2) predicts that the Earth's gravitational field must depend also on the (varying) dialectic constant of the Earth's interior in addition to the Earth's varying density, its size, and its rotation about its axis ... something that is quite "falsifiable", of course. And I'm approaching several mining prospecting firms whom I hope to interest in this possible help in their gravity mapping of various parts of the Earth's surface in their prospecting for minerals.

Now, doesn't something practical, potentially quite useful, and down to Earth like this have ANY interest for you as a scientist?

Well, I'm hoping to get you interested in some more practical things than those stemming from SRT and GRT, and so I've ordered my publisher to send you soft copies of each of Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies' and my two volumes of our Neo-Newtonian Mechanics, volume 1 being non-radiative effects and volume 2 being inductive and radiative effects. Now, these two volumes are quite inexpensively priced, and so this does NOT involve a large outlay of cash. Thus,, if you discard them, it's no big deal. But I do hope you will at least look them over before you decide what to do with them (about Dec 6, 2017 arrival) as I think there might still be some (residual) practical interests in your very fertile scientific mind.